implementing contact activities - separated parent ... · microsoft powerpoint - coote ahrc...

Mike Coote – National Commissioning and Partnerships Manager

Implementing Contact Activities - Separated Parent Information Programmes and Domestic Violence

Perpetrator Programmes - learning so far.

History

• Development of out of court services for separating parents.

• Making Contact Work 2001– Application to court as last resort– Improved contact services– Family Assistance Orders– Educational programmes– Ordered Mediation (information meetings)– Enforcement

History

• Family Resolution Pilot Project 04-05• 2007 – Longer term outcomes of

conciliation– Conciliated agreements tend not to resolve the underlying issues

– Parties tend to leave the court system because they have run out of energy or money, not because they have a resolution of the issues

– Time does tend to heal the hurt of adults but much less so that of children

– Trinder, L. & Kellett, J. (2007) The longer‐term outcomes of in‐court conciliation. London: Ministry of Justice.  

Delivery

• Children and Adoption Act 2006

• Contact Activity - implemented 12-08• Separated Parents Information Programme• Mediation Information and Assessment Meetings• Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programmes

Delivery

• Children and Adoption Act 2006

• Enforcement of contact orders• Risk Assessment• Extended Family Assistance Orders

Delivery

• Children and Adoption Act 2006

• Enforcement of contact orders• Risk Assessment• Extended Family Assistance Orders

Delivery• Shared responsibility• Managed by Cafcass for the DfE –

creation of Commissioning and Partnerships function – 9 staff

• Training programmes delivered Autumn 2008 (Cafcass and JSB)

• Processes in place• Voluntary Sector Providers• Service User funded with hardship

funding – up to April 2010, then free

Contact Services

• As at March 2011 there were 338 accredited Contact centres. 

• 57 contact centres offering supported and supervised child contact

• 26 contact centres offering supervised child contact – 1824 Cafcass funded referrals 10‐11

• 255 contact centres offering supported child contact – 197 part funded by Cafcass 2010‐11

SPIP

• SPIP delivered by 58 organisations at 197 locations– 25 Mediation Services– 23 Contact and Relationship services– 10 other – 5 National

• DVPP delivered by 17 organisations

PIP cases as a proportion of applications 2009‐10

945

28120

59033

Safe and Beneficial contact cases

PIP cases as a proportion of applications projected 2010‐11

13178

16178

58722

Safe and Beneficial contact cases

DVPP

• DVPP Numbers since Dec 08:– Assessment 79– Part complete 28– Ongoing 49– Complete 19

– Total 175

DVPP

• Respect accreditation or NOMS –Probation Trust services

• 30 week programmes• Individual and group work• Women’s support service• Assessment and reporting back to

Cafcass• Contact issues through Cafcass, in line

with the Judicial protocol

DVPP

• Referrals and contact not yet well managed in all cases– Limited use of supervised contact– Limited case management– Limited view of realistic outcome– Shared approach lacking

• Too soon to draw conclusions• Breifings for Service Managers and DVPP

Providers currently underway

PIP Basics

• Parents attend separately• Service Users choose provider – Listings

are on www.cafcass.gov.uk

PIP Basics

• Court must order, and inform chosen provider

• Four hours of group work-usually 2 x 2 hours

18

Parenting CourseSession 1a

• Main themes: introduction to course, rapport building and ground rules

• Content: the divorce or separation process

• Exercise “The Separation or Divorce Journey”

• Engagement and empathy

19

Parenting CourseSession 1b

• Main themes: focusing on children and parents’ strengths.

• DVD “When Parents Part”

• Discussion on what children need, what they don’t need and talking to children

• Exercise “The Parenting Questionnaire”.

• What children need

20

Parenting CourseSession 2a

• Main themes: parent communication

• Re‐visiting the parenting questionnaire and identifying a positive change

• Exercise “Scenarios”

• Content and discussion on having difficult conversations, having “a business like relationship” and tips for contact

• Seeing the other side and communication

21

Parenting CourseSession 2b

• Main themes: emotional aspects of divorce and separation and moving forward

• Content and discussion on the stages of loss and taking care of yourself

• Exercise “The Support Network”

• Content and discussion on moving forward, counselling and mediation

• Exercise revisiting “The Separation or Divorce Journey” and ending

• Support and next steps

How can PIP make a difference?

• How can we keep the light bulb on?

• Good foundations in place• How can we capitalise on an intervention

with positive features?

Liz Trinder and team 2011 research

Aims1.Understand the court and non-court pathways undertaken by parents attending PIP, and how this compares to the experiences of comparable non-PIP cases. 2.Measure the average cost of providing PIP and the cost-effectiveness of PIPs in comparison with other court-based pathways. 3.Measure the impact on families of PIPs compared to other court-based pathways. 4.Understand in more depth why PIP might work better in some circumstances than others, including what parents and professionals perceive to be helpful and unhelpful about PIPs and what changes may be required.

Research design• A telephone survey of PIP parents and non-PIP parents

to provide data on pathways, impacts, costs and processes.

• Purposively-sampled qualitative telephone interviews with parents reporting positive and negative outcomes from PIP

• Four focus groups with parents shortly after completing the final session of PIP.

• Focus groups and individual interviews with judges, family lawyers, CAFCASS staff and PIP deliverers.

• A survey of the average unit costs of delivering a single PIP cycle based on a specially-designed tool.

What are we learning?

• PIP numbers are up, but referral rates vary widely

• Criteria for suitability and appropriateness are not consistently applied

• Cases involving risk are being referred• PIP cases are more likely to have a review

(rather than hearing) but are longer in court• PIP is being used as ‘additional’ not ‘instead’• Mediation take up is low

What are we learning? Quantitative data

• PIP has a positive effect on contact• No firm evidence of an effect on quality of

relationship / communication• PIP increases probability of future, out of

court, negotiation• Earlier use is better, but there can be an

effect for later cases too

What are we learning? Transferring to PIP

• Referral process are varied ‘slow inefficient and unreliable’

• Parents are poorly briefed before PIP

What are we learning? The Course

• Participants positive, even where outcomes not positive

• Increases understanding of other’s perspectives

• Format and content is valued• Material may not be relevant to diverse

families, and may not address skills development

What are we learning? Follow through

• Cases go back to court• Not to Mediation, or to direct

communication• Limited evidence that Court processes

explicitly build on the work achieved in PIP

Recommendations

• Earlier PIP, and linked more clearly to MIAM or dispute resolution

• Better screening and selection – faster referral• Better preparation and setting of expectations• Reviewed programme content• Post PIP follow up – picking up on the changed

language and new understandings

New Models

• PIP Plus – a post PIP intervention by providers; a joint meeting and discussion of parenting plan and dispute resolution – expectations clear at order stage

• PIP and MIAM – expectations clear at order stage

• Developing PIP for diverse groups – extending provision of other groups to meet other needs -DVPP

Programme improvement

• Programme review to ensure emphasis on skill development – focus on post-separation parenting challenges

• Work on referral processes – quick and clear• Seminars with all Cafcass early intervention team

managers (June / July), leading to input to FJCs– Screening– Preparation and expectations– Referral speed– Follow up - diversion

Successful Foundations

• Compelled attendance

• Use of partner organisations to deliver the programme

• Mixed groups – applicant/respondent/gender

• DVD, exercises and handbook

• Enthusiastic and capable facilitators

• Expectations

• Follow up

Summary

• PIP appears to resonate with many parents, has found a significant place in the FJS, but has a modest impact.

• ‘The most effective programmes take time and several iterations to develop... Full potential has probably not yet been realised’

Building bridges? An evaluation of the costs and effectiveness of the Separated Parents 

Information Programme (PIP)

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/.

Court Application

First Hearing – safety checks by Cafcass

Cafcass reports / court decision 

making

Court application / adversarial process

Parenting Agreement focussed process

Legal advice

Court ControlMediation

PIP

Information Hub

Mediator control

Mediator assessment PIP

Dispute resolution

Court Application

Court Control

Parenting Agreement

Progress• Well placed in the Family Justice Review• We are aware that this has not always been

an easy journey for providers or referrers – it is a work in progress

• The multi-agency aspects are now much more clear

Fiona GreenMike Coote

Helen CarsonLiz LawrenceLisa Marlowe

Marie HollandStephanie Merriman

Yvonne MartinDavid D’Arcy

Name.surname@cafcass.gsi.gov.ukwww.cafcass.gov.uk